Georgina Woodward

  1. What “load of numbers” are you talking about? Did you not notice that, as well as word symbols representing real-world numbers, I also used word symbols for real-world categories (“mass”, “charge”), symbols for “=”, symbols for brackets, and symbols for AND and IS TRUE? The numbers are only a part of the picture I was trying to portray.

  2. I think you yourself are perhaps “muddling” symbols of the world with the actual world. Physicists and others have always used word and other symbols for real-world categories (like mass and charge), real-world relationships (“laws of nature”), and real-world numbers that apply to the categories, in order to represent theoretical, experimental and measured aspects of the real world. Are you suggesting that symbols with known meanings should NOT be used to represent aspects of the real world? I’m saying that in order to concisely represent known aspects of real-world primitive particles, one needs to use the above-mentioned AND and IS TRUE symbols, which have known meanings to people.

  3. “…isn’t material … material existence”: In the absence of any actual evidence of any material substance, I’m concluding that the most primitive material substance can be represented in the above-mentioned way which includes the known aspects of the most primitive matter. Have you got a better way of representing primitive material substance, apart from the words “material existence”, words which pretty much say absolutely nothing about the known aspects of primitive material substance?

  4. Define what you mean by "information".

    Georgina Woodward
    I’m saying that the most fundamental matter, the material substance of a fundamental particle, is actually just information which can be represented in the following type of way:

    (mass = number1) AND (velocity = number2) AND (charge = number3) AND (spin = number4) IS TRUE,

    where the numbers can be zero, and where the logical connectives “AND” and “IS TRUE” are the means whereby a “particle” of information can be built.

    People know what the word “number” refers to; people know what the words “mass”, “velocity”, “charge” and “spin” refer to; people know what an equals sign is; and people know what the words “AND” and “IS TRUE” are supposed to mean.

    So, can you provide a better, alternative way of describing fundamental matter?

        Lorraine Ford
        The difference between information (like the above purportedly existing “particle” of information) and categories (a group term for things like mass, charge, and position) is that:

        • Information is always represented in logical connection with other information, using logical connectives like IF, AND, OR, THEN and IS TRUE.
        • Categories are always represented in mathematical relationship with other categories, using mathematical operators and equals signs.

        The physics equations that represent the experimentally determined relationships between categories (“laws of nature”) essentially say that IF some numbers that apply to some of the categories change, THEN other numbers that apply to other categories will instantly change, so that the relationships between the categories are never violated. Then all further number movement stops, because these relationships between categories can’t explain why the numbers would ever change in the first place, or why the numbers would continue to change. In other words, the relationships between categories can’t explain why the world is continually moving and changing.

        To explain why the world is continually moving and changing, one needs to represent the world in terms of information, using statements containing logical connectives like IF, AND, OR, THEN and IS TRUE to represent the necessary number jumps. But, relationships between categories are essentially rules, whereas logical connections between information are not rules. So, unlike relationships between categories, which can be experimentally verified, it would seemingly be difficult to experimentally verify any specific purportedly existing logical connections between information.

            Lorraine Ford
            But (who knew?!!*) that man-made symbols of the real world are not the same as the real world!! I suggested a way of representing a fundamental particle in the above posts, but the written symbols:

            (mass = number1) AND (velocity = number2) AND (charge = number3) AND (spin = number4) IS TRUE,

            or the same symbols read aloud, are not a particle. Who knew?!!

            And the same symbols represented in a computer or an AI computer, are not a particle. Who knew? Who knew that symbols of the real world are not the same as the real world? I try to explain this in my essay, and in subsequent posts, but it seems to be a very, very, very difficult concept for many people to understand.

            *who knew?:
            Expressing ironic lack of surprise, upon learning something.

                Lorraine Ford
                The thing about basic matter (and also consciousness) seems to be it’s quality of “AND” and “IS TRUE”, where many things (like mass, charge and spin) are simultaneously true in the one time and place (so to speak, because time and place are also part of the things that are true). This is easily seen in one’s own consciousness, where many things are simultaneously true in the one time and place (e.g.: (the grass is green) AND (the sun is shining) IS TRUE). This seems to show that logical connectives (represented by the following symbols: IF, AND, OR, THEN and IS TRUE), are just as important and basic a part of the real world as the aspects of the world that are represented by mathematical operators and equals signs.

                However, it bears repeating for those poor souls spooked by human creations (i.e. AIs), that symbols representing the above logical connectives (which are symbolised by man-made arrangements of circuits, transistors and voltages) are not the actual logical connectives that seem to exist as a fundamental part of the real world.

                    Lorraine Ford
                    OMG. These people on the FQxI forums website with their crazy alarmist fearful views about AIs developing minds of their own, and either going rogue, or going to save humanity! And yet, just like the climate change deniers have no idea how the climate works, the AI alarmists and utopians also have no idea of the nitty gritty of how computers/ AIs are made to work, and they just believe what everyone else (who also don’t know the nitty gritty of how computers/ AIs are made to work) tells them. It’s truly laughable how a bunch of woefully ignorant people, physicists included, have managed to freak themselves out.

                    In my above posts, and in my essay, and I think also in my posts to other essay authors, I have tried to explain the nitty gritty, the well-known details, of how computers/AIs are actually made to work, and I’m not sure that I can be bothered repeating myself over and over and over again.

                    More disturbingly for a supposedly science-based website, is the complete lack of interest in the WELL-KNOWN DETAILS OF HOW COMPUTERS/ AIs ARE MADE TO WORK. It is an absolute disgrace that a type of religious belief has overtaken these people. I expect they will soon all be banging tambourines and shouting “hallelujah”!

                    More seriously, having badly misjudged the nature of AI, the AI alarmists and utopians are inevitably wasting their own time, and everyone else’s time, barking up the wrong tree.

                        Lorraine Ford
                        Even the developers don't know the nitty gritty of how the large language models learn for themselves. They can ask what the models have done but humans think in a different way. The speed and amount of processing by AIs can be beyond the ability of relatively much slower human checking ,

                            Georgina Woodward
                            Unlike all the genuinely learned immunology professors during COVID who could give you a detailed account of how viruses and pandemics work, NOT ONE of the AI alarmists or AI utopians, not one of the “AI researchers” or executives, not one of the videos, not one of the people supposedly “in the know”, could give you a detailed account of how bunches of wires, transistors and voltages, run by computer programs, are supposed to transform into civilisation threatening entities with minds of their own. This is because, unlike the genuinely learned immunology professors, the know-nothing AI alarmists/ utopians are believers in miracles.

                            ALL the technical knowledge of how computers/ AIs are made to work is out there. How is it that the fearful know-nothings with their inability to explain anything, and their reliance on dubious interpretations of superficial appearances, and fear-based know-nothing videos, can hold sway on a supposedly science-based website?

                                Georgina Woodward
                                They are a whole new ball game ONLY for those who know nothing about, who have no understanding about, how computers/ AIs are made to work.

                                I repeat: ALL the technical knowledge of how computers/ AIs are made to work is out there. How is it that the fearful know-nothings with their inability to explain anything, and their reliance on dubious interpretations of superficial appearances, and fear-based know-nothing videos, can hold sway on a supposedly science-based website?

                                    Lorraine Ford
                                    I should have said:
                                    ALL the technical and programming knowledge of how computers/ AIs are made to work their seeming “miracles” is out there. There are no actual miracles; there is no emergence of potentially rogue, or potentially benevolent, intelligent entities. The actual intelligent entities are the many thousands, probably millions, of intelligent people whose scientific, mathematical, technical and programming work, in many different fields over many years, enabled the development of computers and AIs.

                                    So, how is it that the AI-fearful know-nothings, and the AI-techno-utopian know-nothings, who are both characterised by their complete and utter inability to explain how computers/ AIs are made to work, and who have therefore developed woo-woo beliefs about AIs based on superficial appearances, can hold sway on a supposedly science-based website?

                                      Seriously. Apparently, there’s an organisation of very-serious-fellows called “The Monty Python Institute of Future Life” (or some similar name) who write very-serious-papers, and give very-serious-lectures, and make very-serious-videos, about something called “existential wrists” (or some similar term) that you get from AI.

                                      Apparently, susceptibility to this absolutely horrible affliction is a result of being one of the close to 100% of the human population who don’t know, and don’t consider it is necessary to know, the technical details of how computers/ AIs are made to work. There seems to be quite a few physicists and philosophers currently afflicted by this absolutely horrible “existential wrists” condition. But not to worry, because a little bit of actual knowledge of how computers/ AIs are made to work will clear up the horrible condition in no time.

                                        Lorraine Ford
                                        The idea that man-made symbols mean something, or anything, to the non-human part of the universe, and to computers/ AIs in particular, is at the root of techno-idiocy.

                                        This techno-idiocy is what founded the woo-woo “Monty Python Institute of Future Life” (if I’ve got the name right), and techno-idiocy is behind the current ludicrous and woo-woo discussions between Robert McEachern, and Georgina Woodward on the FQxI Forums website.

                                        In fact, nothing in nature apart from human beings knows about, or responds to, man-made symbols of the world. E.g., binary digits occur nowhere in nature, except as a concept in the minds of human beings. Apart from the minds of human beings, nothing in nature knows about, or responds to, the binary digit concept, or to man-made symbols of the binary digit concept. All nature knows about is categories (like mass or position or spin), mathematical relationships between these categories, and numbers that apply to the categories. But, once again, nature doesn’t know about the man-made symbols that people use to represent these real-world categories, relationships, and numbers.

                                        There are no binary digits in computers. Specially arranged circuits, transistors and voltages are used to represent the man-made binary digit concept, and there is a fair bit of specialist knowledge and circuit complexity required to get the circuits, transistors and voltages to perform as required in order to correctly represent the binary digit concept. Depending on the setup and the components to be used, various ranges of voltages can be used to represent the binary digits concept, where the higher voltages in the selected range can be used to represent the zero binary digit concept, OR the lower voltages in the selected range can be used to represent the zero binary digit concept. In other words, there is no rule whereby voltages can be measured, and calculations made using the voltage measurements, to reveal the binary digits, and the words, sentences and mathematical symbols that the binary digits are supposed to represent.

                                        The idea that computers/ AIs know the meaning of these man-made binary digit symbols, or word, sentence, and mathematical symbols, is the woo-woo lunacy that fills the minds of the techno-idiots.

                                            Lorraine Ford
                                            The FQxI / “Monty Python Institute of Future Life” woo-woo brigade ARE MAKING BIG CLAIMS about the supposed nature of computers/ AIs. So, these people need to explain how they think computers/ AIs:

                                            1. Know what a binary digit is.
                                            2. Know that a voltage is meant to represent a binary digit.
                                            3. Know what particular binary digit is meant to be represented by a particular voltage.
                                            4. Know that arrays or groups of these binary digits are in turn meant to represent word symbols and number symbols.
                                            5. Know what particular word symbols and number symbols are meant to be represented by particular arrays or groups of these binary digits.
                                            6. Know that human beings ascribe meaning to these word symbols and number symbols.
                                            7. Know what particular meaning human beings ascribe to particular word symbols and number symbols.

                                                Lorraine Ford
                                                Unlike in nature (planets, particles, people, plants, praying mantids, porpoises, and molecules), where information is an inherent “property” of it’s substance, and where higher-level information is built from the ground up from the lower-level “properties” (categories, contexts/ relationships, numbers) of its fundamental particles, symbols of information have no such provenance or secure basis.

                                                This is the absolute lunacy of the people from (e.g.) the Future of Life Institute or the Machine Intelligence Research Institute, who get themselves in a big tizz over mere SYMBOLS of information.

                                                    Swizz Auto is your go-to destination for top-notch used engines near me. With a convenient location and a wide selection of meticulously inspected units, we provide reliable and affordable engine solutions for your vehicle. Trust Swizz Auto to find the perfect used engine near you.
                                                    call us at Toll-Free: +18887937616

                                                    Lorraine Ford
                                                    There is a long and growing list of the products of human consciousness and creativity, including: written and spoken words and other symbols, languages, books and novels, mathematics and philosophy, computer programming languages and computers, cars, the Pyramids, spacecraft, atomic bombs, music, art and sculpture, science, laws and governments …

                                                    But the thing that sets computer programming languages and computers apart from the rest is that they are not merely a product of human consciousness and creativity, but that they actually seek to symbolically represent human conscious knowledge and creativity.

                                                    The physical circuits, transistors and voltages in computers/ AIs are special man-made setups that use the known properties of particular physical materials to implement the symbols in the computer programming languages. But it is the computer programming languages that more specifically represent human conscious knowledge and creativity, that naturally enough, needs to first be translated into mathematical and logical terms. So, the following is a coded representation of human conscious knowledge of a situation:

                                                    (variable1 = number1) AND (variable2 = number2) AND (variable3 = number3) IS TRUE

                                                    And, the following is a coded representation of human creativity in response to a situation; creative because the “THEN” is not actually a mathematical consequence of the “IF” (except when the computer program is installed and running, in which case the “THEN” becomes a man-made rule that is implemented):

                                                    IF (variable1 = number1) AND (variable2 = number2) AND (variable3 = number3) IS TRUE, THEN (assign number4 to variable4) AND (assign number5 to variable5 ).

                                                    ................................................................................

                                                    Those naïve people who are blown away by apparently miraculous signs and symbols of consciousness and creativity in AIs need to realise that computer programming languages and computer programs always were nothing more than symbolic representations of human consciousness and creativity. I.e. human conscious knowledge of situations that might be encountered, and higher-level through to lower-level human ways of creatively handling these situations.

                                                        Lorraine Ford
                                                        Rather than the mistaken belief that computers/ AIs are developing consciousness and creativity,

                                                        the actual lesson of computers/ AIs is that the world can’t be symbolically represented by mathematical equations alone (i.e., mathematical operators including equals signs; numbers; and the symbols that represent variables/ categories like mass and position):

                                                        to more correctly represent all aspects of the world one also needs to use logical connective symbols like IF, AND, OR, THEN, and IS TRUE.

                                                          2 months later

                                                          As I try to explain in my essay, physics can’t explain why the world is moving, i.e. physics can’t explain free will:

                                                          In physics, the world is represented in terms of special measurable categories (like position, charge or mass), number symbols that represent the results of these measurements, and mathematical equations that represent the relationships that have been found to exist between these categories (“laws of nature”, “laws of physics”).

                                                          Using the terms of physics, the free will issue can be put the following way: what is changing the numbers for a particular category? Can I myself sometimes freely change my own position numbers (that relate to e.g. my own vocal cords, eyes, legs, hands or fingers), or is it only ever the laws of nature that can change my position numbers, and every other number for every other category in the entire universe?

                                                          Physics can’t honestly answer this question, because physics’ mathematical formulations of the law of nature relationships mean that physicists can only ever say that IF some numbers change, THEN all other numbers will be found to have also changed so that the law of nature relationships are never violated. But physics can’t actually say WHAT is causing each initial number jump/ number change.

                                                            6 days later

                                                            Lorraine Ford
                                                            One can only correctly represent a moving system, or part of a moving system, algorithmically, i.e. using the type of logical connective symbols used in computer programs. So, one can never correctly represent our moving world using only the equations that represent “laws of nature”, because despite their delta symbols, the equations only represent relationships between measurable categories, the equations can’t represent real-world number movement, e.g. for a particular real-world category like particle relative position.

                                                            But unfortunately, physicists have seemingly wrongly assumed that “law of nature” equations, with their delta symbols, or any other mathematical formulations representing the “laws of nature”, can completely deal with, or cover, the issue of number movement. But this never was the case: even theoretically, number movement is a completely different thing to relationships between categories.

                                                            How could science be different? Science could be different if physicists woke up to the fact that there exists another completely separate and necessary aspect of the world, an aspect that can only be represented algorithmically, i.e. using logical connective symbols.